[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 119: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> > Policy statement: Any RIR's member may transfer IPv4 addresses to the
> > member of another RIR as long as the two RIRs agree and exercise
> > Internet stewardship and the values expressed in RFC2050.
> 
> "two RIRs agree" is slightly fuzzy. I suggest slightly  more words:
> 
> "so long as the transfer is consistent with both RIR policies for the
> inter-region transfer of addresses."
> 
> I'd also ditch the stewardship line. It adds fuzziness that's
> difficult to evaluate in a practical and consistent way. Besides, if
> both RIRs set policy to a different standard of stewardship, why tie
> their hands?

Given that there is no requirement for IP address blocks to be used
in any specific region and there is no requirement for organizations
to do business with the nearest RIR, I don't see any useful purpose
for this kind of policy.

Expect in one case, where an organization who already deals with RIR A
acquires a block of addresses registered with RIR B. In that case it
is reasonable for the recipient to not have to open and manage a 
second RIR relationship.

But the policy doesn't say that, and I am wondering why.

In fact, I find the proposed text very unclear if you use the dictionary
meaning of the words. I looked in section two of the NRPM (Definitions) 
and did not see a special definition of the word "transfer". I don't believe
it is in our interests to create new ambiguous jargon, so I would like 
to see this policy expressed in clear language before forming a final
opinion of it.

For example, my current employer acquired a number of address blocks by
transfer from acquring my previous employer, who in turn acquired those
addresses by transfer when being spun out of a parent company, who in
turn acquired those addresses by transfer from a company that they acquired.
These are transfers but any new policy should be worded in a way to have
zero impact on such transfers. Or it should explain clearly why we need
to change things in that area.

At present count me in the CON column.

--Michael Dillon